Macleans.ca » Jean Crowderhttp://www.macleans.ca
Canada's national weekly current affairs magazineMon, 03 Aug 2015 00:25:17 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2NDP notes: Mulcair says he is only party leader who can vote in Quebechttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ndp-notes-mulcair-says-he-is-only-federal-leader-who-can-vote-in-quebec-election/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ndp-notes-mulcair-says-he-is-only-federal-leader-who-can-vote-in-quebec-election/#commentsSun, 06 Apr 2014 17:41:08 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=536277Party also elects two high-profile co-chairs of its national campaign

The NDP leader says he voted in an advance poll for Geoffrey Kelley of the province’s Liberal party, who Mulcair says is a long-time friend who he considers a social democrat with deep NDP roots.

Mulcair says his primary home is in Quebec and not at Stornoway, the official residence of the leader of the Opposition in Ottawa’s tony Rockcliffe neighbourhood.

The New Democrat leader also cautioned against writing off the sovereignty movement in Quebec.

Mulcair says past politicians and pundits have made that mistake before only to see those predictions come back to haunt them.

OTTAWA – The NDP has chosen two high-profile MPs to be the architects of its 2015 election strategy.

Jean Crowder and Alexandre Boulerice have been named co-chairs of the NDP’s national campaign.

It will fall to Crowder and Boulerice to lead the NDP’s planning and preparations for next year’s campaign, in which the party hopes to build on gains in the 2011 federal election that saw it become the official Opposition for the first time in its history.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair made the announcement Sunday in Ottawa at a weekend meeting of the party’s federal council.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ndp-notes-mulcair-says-he-is-only-federal-leader-who-can-vote-in-quebec-election/feed/1Veteran B.C. New Democrat MP Jean Crowder says won’t be running againhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/veteran-b-c-new-democrat-mp-jean-crowder-says-wont-be-running-again/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/veteran-b-c-new-democrat-mp-jean-crowder-says-wont-be-running-again/#commentsThu, 23 Jan 2014 19:13:41 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=457258OTTAWA – New Democrat MP Jean Crowder says she won’t run in the next election, expected in the fall of 2015.
The 61-year-old member for the British Columbia riding of…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/veteran-b-c-new-democrat-mp-jean-crowder-says-wont-be-running-again/feed/1It hurts when you’re not invited to the partyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/it-hurts-when-youre-not-invited-to-the-party/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/it-hurts-when-youre-not-invited-to-the-party/#commentsTue, 10 Sep 2013 18:21:47 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=419068Another way politics is like high school

]]>Greg Rickford was recently miffed that he wasn’t invited to the Ontario government’s announcement of new funding for the Experimental Lakes Area—new funding being necessary because of the Harper government’s decision to withdraw its funding.

Pat Martin probably feels Mr. Rickford’s pain—credit where it’s due: Mr. Rickford seems to have expressed his displeasure without swearing on Twitter—and various opposition MPs would probably concur that it’d be nicer if we all tried to be more proactively inclusive. Indeed, NDP MP Jean Crowder is unimpressed at having not received an invitation to a recent government funding announcement, to which Conservative MP John Duncan responds dismissively.

On Friday, MP Duncan said he was proud to have the opportunity to announce the federal funding and was shocked Crowder would want to attend. “I was proud to have the opportunity to announce our Government’s support for important, community-driven projects in the Cowichan Valley through initiatives like the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund and the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program,” Duncan said.

“Quite frankly, I am surprised that Ms. Crowder wanted to attend the event given the fact that she voted against both of these programs.”

In voting against the government’s 2012 and 2013 budgets economic action plans, you see, Ms. Crowder was apparently stating her categorical opposition to infrastructure and conservation.

“After the last two weeks of witnessing the Prime Minister defend the entitlements of his Senators and his ministers’ conflicts of interest, it’s good to finally see one Conservative, Mr. Duncan, actually take responsibility for his actions.

“Conservatives have clearly been unable to get the job done on aboriginal issues. At this crucial time in First Nation, Métis and Inuit relations, the Prime minister must move quickly to replace Mr. Duncan with a full-time Minister – not someone who’s time is split between three ministries – who can help the Conservative government change direction and start building a more respectful nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations, Métis and Inuit.”

The official story seems to be that ministers were ordered to review their files after Jim Flaherty’s letter to the CRTC got the Finance Minister in trouble and that Mr. Duncan’s letter turned up as a result of that review. John Geddes explains why writing to the tax court was such a clear infraction.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/photo-gallery-big-cheeses-gather-in-ottawa/feed/2‘Now it’s time for the government to start listening’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/now-its-time-for-the-government-to-start-listening/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/now-its-time-for-the-government-to-start-listening/#commentsFri, 11 Jan 2013 22:18:11 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=336327A statement from NDP aboriginal affairs critic Jean Crowder.In recent days we have seen the frustrations from years of failed promises. Prime Minister Stephen Harper heard about these frustrations …

In recent days we have seen the frustrations from years of failed promises. Prime Minister Stephen Harper heard about these frustrations first-hand from the delegation of Chiefs who met with him this afternoon.

After the Crown-First Nations Gathering last year, many First Nations were hopeful that the Prime Minister would change how he dealt with First Nations issues. And last November, National Chief Shawn Atleo sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking when those commitments would be honoured, because there had been no action. The Prime Minister could have prevented all this if he had followed up on his commitments from last year’s meetings. Instead of respectful dialogue, Conservatives pushed through an omnibus budget bill without ever consulting the First Nations being affected.

In a letter to the Prime Minister before Christmas, our leader, Tom Mulcair, warned Stephen Harper that it was past time to follow through on the commitments, and urged him to act immediately.

In recent days we have witnessed an incredible diversity of First Nations youth, women, leaders and politicians letting all Canadians know that issues like treaty implementation, missing and murdered Aboriginal women, resource sharing, protecting the environment, and poverty eradication need to be given a higher priority by this Conservative government.

The grassroots movement we are witnessing has the potential to unite all Canadians who share these concerns.

Chantal Chagnon, an aboriginal singer and drummer originally from the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan, said the omnibus bill violates First Nations’ treaty rights as well as human rights. “We’re fed up,” Chagnon said. “This new bill coming in, it’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Regena Crowchild, a treaty consultant with the Tsuu T’ina nation, said the government hasn’t consulted with First Nations groups on the legislation that affects them. “They’re not giving us proper opportunity to address our concerns or talk to them about it,” Crowchild said. “They want to amend the Indian Act without consulting us. All this legislation is just moving towards making us ordinary Canadians with no treaty rights.”

The Scene. Of all the festive games to be played on Halloween, shaming committee chairs is somewhat less messy than leaving a bag of flaming dog poop on a neighbour’s doorstep, but decidedly less fun than bobbing for apples. Alas, under the stodgy rules of parliamentary decorum, it was the best the NDP could offer this afternoon.

The New Democrats have been occupying themselves these days with attempting to convince various committees to take up study of C-45, the government’s latest budget bill. The Conservatives, soon after tabling the bill in the House, had said that they would allow the bill to be studied at 10 committees. The Conservatives vowed they would move a motion at the finance committee to do just that. But the New Democrats were apparently keen to see those studies commence post haste and so have been proposing motions hither and yon. Each of those efforts seems to have been stymied. And so now the New Democrats get to claim great umbrage.

“Mr. Speaker, this is simple,” Megan Leslie explained this afternoon. “A motion was proposed, we went in camera, and the motion never came out again.”

Ms. Leslie wondered if the chair of the environment committee—Conservative MP Mark Warawa—might stand and confirm that he was going to be scheduling hearings on C-45. To respond though stood Transport Minister Denis Lebel, who assured Ms. Leslie of the validity of the budget’s changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Jean Crowder tried her luck, wondering if the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee—Conservative MP Chris Warkentin—would endorse a study of budget bill amendments to the Indian Act. To respond stood Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan. Phil Toone asked to hear from the chair of the fisheries committee—Conservative MP Rodney Weston—but instead heard from Mr. Lebel.

Finally, when the NDP’s Rosane Doré Lefebrve asked to hear from the chair of the public safety committee, Government House leader Peter Van Loan decided he had enough of this game. Standing with a significant stack of papers in his hand, Mr. Van Loan attempted to pronounce shame on the official opposition.

“Mr. Speaker, the government is asking several committees to scrutinize the legislation, but I always find it interesting when the NDP members say, ‘Do as we say, not as we do.’ They complain that this bill is too big, but when the NDP does budget bills in Manitoba, they are omnibus bills,” he protested.

There were chuckles from the New Democrats.

“When the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government in Quebec, they had a budget implementation bill 468 sections long, 383 pages,” he continued.

“Woah!” sang various Conservatives in mock shock.

“The Leader of the Opposition says, ‘Do as I say, not as I do,’ ” Mr. Van Loan concluded.

While the Conservatives heckled, the New Democrats insisted on continuing with their chosen game. Robert Aubin asked to hear from the chair of the transport committee. In response, Mr. Lebel stood and invoked a carbon tax.

When Sadia Groguhé stood and asked for a response from the chair of the immigration committee, Mr. Van Loan pointed down the government’s front row at Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. Mr. Kenney, though, pointed back across the room at committee chair David Tilson. Apparently by the rules of ministerial precedence in pointing, Mr. Tilson was now compelled to stand. “Mr. Speaker, surely the member is not asking me to overrule the decision of the committee,” Mr. Tilson protested. “If that is what she is asking me to do, the answer is no. The committee spoke, and that is the answer.”

Charlie Angus stood then to make the final move, suggesting that the Conservatives were attempting to protect Tony Clement from questions about the navigable waters around his riding. Here though it was Mr. Van Loan who stood, with an urgent bulletin in hand.

“Mr. Speaker, while the opposition continues to complain about the size of the bill, I do have to get up and correct myself,” the House leader explained. “I earlier quoted the length of a Quebec budget implementation bill as 383 pages. Unfortunately, that is only the English version of the budget bill of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in the Quebec government. When we have it bilingual, as ours is, it is actually 778 pages long, far longer than any budget bill from this government.”

“Woah!” the Conservatives cried, even louder this time.

By the rules of Mr. Van Loan’s game—whereby one’s guilt is rendered moot when similar guilt is pronounced on one’s opponent—this was apparently supposed to count as a win.

Unfortunately for Mr. Van Loan, a budget bill of 778 pages would measure as only the second largest on his government’s record—more than a hundred pages shorter than the 904-page budget implementation act that received royal assent in 2010.

Perhaps if Mr. Mulcair promises to keep any NDP budget under that page length he can claim ultimate victory.

The Stats. The budget, 10 questions. Foreign investment and veterans, six questions. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, three questions. Employment insurance, ACOA, immigration and fisheries, two questions each. Ethics, the military, trade, the census, the economy and the aluminum industry, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-how-big-is-your-budget/feed/18The Commons: Like a lawfully authorized bridge over navigable watershttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-like-a-lawfully-authorized-bridge-over-navigable-waters/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-like-a-lawfully-authorized-bridge-over-navigable-waters/#commentsTue, 30 Oct 2012 21:24:09 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=309360It is to the Macdonald government's eternal shame that it did not enact a proper FAQ in 1882

]]>The Scene. And so the House returned to the drama, intrigue and tragedy of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Oh if only the Marquess of Lorne—John George Edward Henry Douglas Sutherland Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll and fourth governor general of Canada—had known what he had wrought when he signed into law “an Act respecting Bridges over the navigable waters, constructed under the authority of Provincial Acts” on May 17, 1882. One wonders if he would have hesitated to put his signature on the bill if he’d known that one day its reform would be used to mercilessly mock the president of the Treasury Board.

“Mr. Speaker, members opposite must be getting dizzy from all the spin around their talking points on the Navigable Waters Protection Act,” the NDP’s Megan Leslie sighed this afternoon. “First, they claimed that the changes had nothing to do with environment. They were just reducing red tape for cottagers. However, even Conservatives knew that this law actually did have a role in environmental protection, although they did try to deny it by rewriting websites, and history.”

It is to the Macdonald government’s eternal shame that it did not enact a proper FAQ when it passed the act in 1882. So much of this month’s confusion might’ve been avoided.

“Yesterday, the finance minister changed his tune again and he said that these changes were actually about austerity,” Ms. Leslie claimed, feigning confusion. “So, what is the real answer here? Why is the government gutting environmental protection from the bill?”

Transport Minister Denis Lebel stood and, in his deliberate English, lamented for the great blight that the old bill had become over the last 130 years.

“Mr. Speaker, for years provinces and municipalities have asked us to cut the red tape associated with the Navigable Waters Protection Act,” he insisted. “The act has created a bureaucratic black hole, holding up simple projects that do not impede navigation. Under our plan only projects likely to offset navigation require approval to changes about navigation.”

Ms. Leslie now appealed though to partisan geography. “Last night the truth was exposed because these changes were actually politically driven,” she reported. “Eighty-nine per cent of the protected lakes and rivers are found in Conservative ridings, so whoever decided what bodies of water were protected sure seemed to have a riding map handy. Canadians deserve better than Conservative preferential treatment of their friends. Why are the Conservatives making environmental protection a privilege of the few?”

Mr. Lebel stood and appealed to the kind words of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. “That is about navigation,” he concluded. “We are doing the right thing.”

Jean Crowder stood and wondered why various waterways in British Columbia were no longer to be protected. What of the Cowichan? The Campbell? And the Bella Coola? Mr. Lebel stood and referred her to the kind words of the Canadian Construction Association. “We want to help the country develop projects not for small, small rivers or small places where we do not have to consider the water,” he attempted to explain.

Across the way, Thomas Mulcair laughed.

Then it was Charlie Angus’ turn, the NDP MP afforded an opportunity to taunt his old friend Tony Clement. “Of the 30,000 lakes across this great country, only 97 will be protected, almost all are in Tory ridings and 12 are in the riding of the gazebo king, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka. He protected Lake Rosseau that is home to Hollywood millionaires. He protected Lake Joseph where a cottage will set one back a cool $5 million,” Mr. Angus sang. “I love Muskoka, but does the minister really think that exclusive lakes of millionaires are worthy of more protection than the lakes in the rest of Canada?”

Across the way, Mr. Clement grumbled at Mr. Angus, then leaned over to say something to Mr. Baird. It is apparently Mr. Clement’s fate that the G8 Legacy Fund should be his curse, so that even when he is perhaps entirely innocent—and no evidence of wrongdoing has yet been offered in this case—the gazebos will be used to imply guilt.

Mr. Lebel now appealed to objective data and analysis. “Mr. Speaker, data from the Canadian Hydrographic Service’s nautical charts, Statistics Canada data on freight movement and historical data from the Navigable Waters Protection Program was used to create the list,” he testified. “That is science talking and we will continuing working this way.”

Once more Mr. Mulcair laughed.

Mr. Angus went on and went further, off into the realm of the unfounded. “How about we pull out the clauses of the bill?” he wondered aloud. “We could set up a new bill perhaps called the Goldie Hawn Property Preservation Act. Even better, we could call it the Protecting Millionaire Buddies of the Muskoka Minister So He Can Get Re-elected Act. How about some navigation there?”

Mr. Clement shook his head, appearing rather unimpressed.

“Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities applauds the federal government for the introduction of amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act,” Mr. Lebel informed the House. “We are doing the right thing. Our transport department is working on navigation. That is what we are doing.”

Mr. Mulcair threw up his hands and laughed at the Transport Minister, now verging on giggly.

The Stats. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, seven questions. The economy, six questions. Taxation, foreign investment, immigration and ethics, three questions each. Unions, veterans, the F-35 and arts funding, two questions each. Mortgages, the budget, search-and-rescue and the aluminum industry, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-youtube-campaign/feed/0Women for Topphttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/women-for-topp/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/women-for-topp/#commentsWed, 07 Mar 2012 19:35:04 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=244191Five female NDP MPs—three current, two former—explain their support for Brian Topp.Today we support Brian Topp because we believe it is the best way for us to continue the …

]]>Five female NDP MPs—three current, two former—explain their support for Brian Topp.

Today we support Brian Topp because we believe it is the best way for us to continue the legacy of Jack’s important work. We know that Brian Topp will work collaboratively with women in the NDP to make important political gains for women. Brian shares our values. He cares passionately about equality for women. His approach to politics is courageous, inclusive and progressive.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/women-for-topp/feed/1Who will advocate for euthanasia?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/who-will-advocate-for-euthanasia/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/who-will-advocate-for-euthanasia/#commentsWed, 16 Nov 2011 15:00:29 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=225394Neither the government nor the official opposition seem interested in pursuing the recommendations of yesterday’s Royal Society report.But despite the ambitious proposals, there are no signs Ottawa wants to …

]]>Neither the government nor the official opposition seem interested in pursuing the recommendations of yesterday’s Royal Society report.

But despite the ambitious proposals, there are no signs Ottawa wants to have a debate. “We have no plans to propose any reforms to this area of the law,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said. And the opposition echoed that reluctance: “We don’t want to go down that road,” NDP MP Jack Harris said.

Of the 57 MPs who supported Francine Lalonde’s motion last year, most, owing to the Bloc’s collapse, were defeated this spring. In all, by my count, 10 members who voted for C-384 at second reading remain in the House: Mauril Belanger, Olivia Chow, Denis Coderre, Jean Crowder, Libby Davies, Megan Leslie, John McCallum, Maria Mourani, Massimo Pacetti and Louis Plamondon.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/who-will-advocate-for-euthanasia/feed/7Not in servicehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/not-in-service/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/not-in-service/#commentsThu, 10 Nov 2011 17:54:55 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=224718Two weeks ago, the NDP spent a considerable amount of QP haranguing the government side about problems at Service Canada. The Globe has now spent a few days detailing further…

]]>Two weeks ago, the NDP spent a considerable amount of QP haranguing the government side about problems at Service Canada. The Globe has now spent a few days detailing further troubles—government cuts, computer troubles and a complaints office that you can’t complain to. One assumes this will land back on Human Resources Minister Diane Finley’s desk at QP on Monday.

“The unemployment rate hasn’t dropped and the number of claims that has come in over the past couple of months has actually gone up,” Ms. Crowder said. And “they’ve started to reduce the [temporary] staff even as the claim load hasn’t reduced to the extent that they thought it would.” … The department has assured politicians that benefits to the unemployed will not be affected by the funding review, Ms. Crowder said. But the resources that are used to process those payments could be vulnerable. “So HRSDC needs to come clean on exactly how they are going to meet their obligations with regard to cuts,” she said, “and they haven’t done that yet.”

]]>The Scene. Bob Rae was making fun—pointedly, but sarcastically, mocking the government’s decision to spend $20 million for advice on how to reduce spending. It was, if nothing else, a decent bit of amusement for a Wednesday afternoon.

“Mr. Speaker, a review of public accounts show that the government spending on professional and special services, including the use of consultants, has gone up from $7.24 billion to well over $10 billion, a cumulative increase of over $7 billion,” the Liberal leader informed the House. “I’d like to ask the minister of finance, what does he think the chances are that the $20-million consultants he’s just hired are going to come back and say, ‘You know what a good way is to save money, cut the use of consultants?'”

Here Mr. Rae returned to his seat and here the Finance Minister stood. And here—after some superfluous mocking of Mr. Rae’s time as premier of Ontario—are the altogether remarkable sentences that Jim Flaherty offered in response.

“Yes, we are having experts from outside look at government spending. Yes, we should. Government should not be the sole judge of the way it’s run. We need advice from the outside.”

Had he mispoken? Had he momentarily lost control of his mouth? Did he realize people could hear him saying these things?

Apparently not, because a a few moments later he was saying such things again.

“We should get advice from expertise from the private sector,” he explained for the benefit of the NDP’s Jean Crowder.

Indeed, having said this twice, he was apparently emboldened to then up the philosophical ante.

“Certainly it’s the obligation of government to get the best advice we can,” he told the NDP’s Irene Mathyssen.

The obligation? Of government? Since when? And who says? (Aside, apparently, from the Finance Minister.)

If we were to place any import—if only this once, if only to pass the time—on what the cabinet ministers of this government say out loud, this would seem to categorically contradict much of how this government has chosen to operate. It would seem, in fact, to suggest that Mr. Flaherty has suddenly gone rogue.

Three years ago, for instance, the Prime Minister, who was not present today to hear Mr. Flaherty’s maverick musings, ventured that combatting crime was “maybe the most fundamental reason … the government exists.” And on that note, he sneered at the “the ivory tower experts,” “the tut-tutting commentators” and “the out-of-touch politicians” who do not support his approach to justice policy. Indeed, as the Justice Minister has repeatedly boasted, this government does not govern on the basis of statistics. It does not even attempt to buttress its approach to crime with anything like evidence. It operates, in fact, in direct opposition to the expertise and advice that Jim Flaherty seems to think a government should be obligated to seek.

Perhaps Mr. Flaherty meant only to imply that this standard exists for some of the government’s less-fundamental responsibilities—like budgetary policy and ensuring the judicious and efficient use of public funds. And perhaps only then when a more fundamental responsibility does not take precedence. (This will surely be how he explains it tomorrow when he is forced to retreat from today’s shocking assertions.)

Later this day, for example, the NDP’s Joe Comartin stood to ask if the government might table figures on the estimated costs to the public treasury of the amendments and measures outlined in the government’s omnibus crime bill. It is generally in the government’s contention that such costs are mostly besides the point and the perpetually peeved Mr. Nicholson was predictably unimpressed with the NDP critic’s suggestion.

“Why do those members not stand up for victims of crime for a change?” he asked. “Why not make that a priority?”

Mr. Comartin tried again, this time en francais. Mr. Nicholson duly made a great show of pumping his fist and thrusting his index finger this way and that.

“If that individual wants to get onboard with this,” the Justice Minister ventured, “he should start standing up for victims, people who are the victims of sexual exploitation, do something about drug trafficking in this country, get behind this bill and support it right now.”

If there is a place for expert advice and objective assessment, this was apparently not it.

The Stats. Government spending, nine questions. The economy, six questions. Aboriginal affairs, crime and the environment, four questions each. Trade, the Canada Revenue Agency and the G8 Legacy Fund, two questions each. The G20 summit, equality, transport, immigration, science and Angelo Persichilli, one question each.

I count 19 new MPs (Peggy Nash and Francoise Boivin are newly elected, but not new to Parliament).

Possibly of note: the NDP have split Human Resources and Skills Development between six shadow ministers. Jean Crowder will be Diane Finley’s main counterpart, but Minister Finley will also have the attention of Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Skills), Marie-Claude Morin (Housing), Claude Patry (Employment Insurance), Manon Perreault (Disabilities) and Rathik Sitsabaiesan (Post-Secondary Education).

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/team-layton/feed/10Hey, remember late 2004?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/hey-remember-late-2004/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/hey-remember-late-2004/#commentsFri, 29 May 2009 17:30:15 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=60829Back to the previous Conservative opposition’s demand for objective analysis of the national finances. Here is the NDP’s second question today and the current Conservative government’s response.Ms. Jean Crowder …

]]>Back to the previous Conservative opposition’s demand for objective analysis of the national finances. Here is the NDP’s second question today and the current Conservative government’s response.

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the election the Prime Minister said we would have no deficit. In November, that changed to a small surplus. In January, that changed again to a $34 billion deficit. Now the Conservatives are admitting to the largest shortfall in Canadian history. The finance minister has changed his numbers so often that no one is confident that he knows what he is doing. For the good of the country, will the Prime Minister agree to turn the books over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for an honest appraisal?

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. We have a very competent finance minister who has done a great job of leading us through the outcome of a worldwide recession. In fact, we have put $29 billion, almost 2% of the GDP, into the economy as stimulus money this year. We care about Canadians. We are helping Canadians. We are there to help industries that are struggling. We are there to help those who are unemployed.

]]>The Scene. Shortly before 2 o’clock, in the midst of the capital’s first truly sweltering afternoon this year, a man in a dark suit and plastic animal mask—depicting a sheep, it seems—stood outside the Centre Block entrance reserved for Members of Parliament, handing out copies of former MP Garth Turner’s new book. Said book, as the animal mask was apparently intended to relate, is entitled Sheeple, a term apparently applied to people who often take on the characteristics—curly white hair covering most of the body, fondness for grazing, tendency to do as told—of sheep.

This was conceivably done to make some point. Or poke fun. Or sell a few books. Or some combination thereof. And, for sure, there should be nothing to prohibit anyone from making points, poking fun, or selling books about all that is obvious and absurd and obviously absurd about this place.

But then, in fairness, so much has changed in the six months or so since Mr. Turner was unceremoniously voted out of office. For one, the party to which he was most recently a member has found a new leader, this one fluent in all sorts of English verbs and tenses. For another, that leader has insisted on Question Period being something other than an opportunity to try and convict one’s rivals of various moral crimes.

Today’s session, for instance and as coincidence would have it, began with several fine and reasoned exchanges of inquiry and information. For perhaps a full half hour—with a man in a suit and an animal mask sweating away outside—the proceedings were both graceful and informative, genteel and respectful.

Oh, and boring. Dreadfully, dreadfully boring.

Michael Ignatieff rose first to request more information on the progress of swine flu in Canada. “Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about the swine flu. There are six confirmed cases in Canada, four in Nova Scotia, two in British Columbia. Two Quebecers may have contracted the virus and other cases could be confirmed shortly,” he said. “What measures does the government therefore propose to address this situation?”

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, the rookie suddenly tasked with managing a global pandemic, stood, expressed her concern for the victims of today’s earthquake in Mexico and proceeded to update the House on her conversations with international, national and provincial officials these last few days.

“Mr. Speaker,” responded Ignatieff, “I thank the health minister for the information she has given us.”

The Liberal leader asked about an international travel advisory, the Health Minister assured him of a multi-department response by her government. Ignatieff then wondered how the situation might effect the travel of seasonal workers.

“Mr. Speaker,” replied Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, “I thank the member for his important question.”

A short while later, it was Carolyn Bennett’s turn, the Liberal health critic rising to question the Health Minister.

“Mr. Speaker,” she said. “I would like to thank the Minister of Health for her call yesterday. After a quick reading of the main estimates, it appears that there is $12 million less this year for emergency preparedness response than last year in the Public Health Agency of Canada’s budget, which includes pandemic preparedness and response. Will the Minister of Health unequivocally assure this House that there will be adequate resources available to respond to this threat of a flu pandemic, and ensure an adequate supply of antivirals?”

Aglukkaq assured her there was.

Then it was Kirsty Duncan, the Liberal rookie and science professor. “Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the minister for the briefing this morning,” she began. “We were told that there are 55 million doses in the antiviral stockpile. I understand that the chief public health officer and the CFO of the Public Health Agency are in negotiations with Treasury Board to buy more. Will the minister assure Canadians that sufficient money will be provided for whatever the agency officials deem necessary to protect Canadians?”

“Mr. Speaker,” responded Aglukkaq, “the answer is yes.”

Aside from a couple outbursts—Bob Rae and Deepak Obhrai sparring on the appropriateness of Canada’s response to the situation in Sri Lanka, Pierre Poilievre using a question about the Parliamentary Budget Officer to direct scrutiny on the Speaker, Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff—there was, for awhile, a general sense of coherence and utility to the proceedings. Even Layton, who has often struggled to find the right tone and volume of voice in this new era of reasonableness, managed to pose at least one question in a non-hysterical manner.

Not until Carol Lavallee, the persistent Bloc MP, started hectoring the government about federal jurisdiction did that familiar noise return. Soon enough, Tony Clement was up waving his arms, conducting the imaginary orchestra in his head. Then John Baird was heckling Ujjal Dosanjh. Then Marlene Jennings was chirping at Peter Van Loan. And Baird was screaming at Jean Crowder. And Irene Mathyssen was calling across the aisle to Jason Kenney.

Then, with the second last question of the day, the Conservatives sent up Jeff Watson, the giddy backbencher who’d wandered into the House earlier with a pair of sunglasses perched atop his head. “Mr. Speaker, on April 14 the Liberal leader said, and I quote, ‘We will have to raise taxes,'” he said, expending great energy to seem serious. “Does the government agree with the Liberal leader when he says, and I quote, ‘We will have to raise taxes,’ and should Canadians take him at his word?”

The Liberals groaned, then moaned as the government sent up Pierre Poilievre to answer. At the sight of the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary, Ignatieff decided the proceedings moot, packed up his papers and left the House, the Conservatives calling after him to stay.

“Words, Mr. Speaker,” Poilievre began. “As an academic, a journalist and author, the Liberal leader has built his entire career on words. Surely, he cannot tell us that his words mean nothing. If his words mean nothing, then he means nothing.”

Poilievre invited Ignatieff to return and answer whatever it was he was asking, then returned to his seat and shared a laugh with Tom Lukiwski. Watson smiled too. Chuck Strahl laughed uproariously. John Baird applauded.

For a moment, surely, the man in the animal mask felt a little bit redeemed.